Following Up With a Sigh of Relief

Following up on my last post, I just watched Eric Bolling on Happy Hour and he did not repeat the Limbaugh lie even though Democratic strategist Mark Levine gave him numerous openings. I am relieved that Bolling proved me right.

In fact, Bolling was exactly what I had hoped and have come to trust him for - honest. He pointed out that the president is holding BP responsible despite Levine's ravings (and they were ravings.)

Levine charged that BP was only going to pay $75 million even though both Obama and the CEO of BP said otherwise. In fact, Levine was exactly the opportunistic type I mentioned in the past post. A Democrat seizing on a massive disaster to score political points and somehow create a new tax from this.

The only thing Levine was missing was foaming at the mouth. He shouted amazing inaccuracies, all designed to inflame. Bolling never once took the bait and stuck to the facts.

Levine advocated stopping all offshore drilling - an unrealistic position at best. Bolling calmly explained the economic impact of that. Levine wen on and on about the evil oil companies. Again, Bolling stuck to reality and not the fantasy nonsense.

I would say that Levine is one of those looking to score points from the disaster. One of those totally unacceptable political drones that has no care or worry for actual people. One of those that I dislike and have zero respect for.

In a day and age when very few in the media are fair or balanced or even all that honest, it is good to know that some are.

Thanks.

Spinning the Spill

I have resisted commenting on the oil mess in the Gulf of Mexico mainly because I (unlike the folks at The Weather Channel) do not enjoy commenting on the misery of others.

It took a little longer than I had thought, but the political spin on the Gulf oil disaster is now in full go mode. Let me make it clear that anyone that uses a disaster of this scope for political nonsense is wrong. 11 people are dead and the entire Gulf coast is threatened with a long term mess. Three-fourths of the US shrimping industry is out of business. Uncounted coastal cities and towns are facing the end of their tourism business for years to come.

The administration has appropriately ordered inspections of existing drilling to ensure the proper safety measures are in place. No leases have been canceled. No exploration stopped. They have slowed things down a little to see what happened and why. That makes sense. Look for the real cause and try to find a way to prevent it in the future. Common sense.

This should not be another political spitball game.

For some, sadly, it is.

The Democrats were first out of the gate with the predictable demand to stop all drilling. Several Senators including Bil Nelson of Florida have legislation pending. Environmental groups are screaming that this proves them right and so on. The Democrats shamelessly sought villains in the oil industry, the Republican party, Congress and so on. Lawsuits have already been filed. Some have gone as far as to suggest shutting down the entire oil industry with no thought to the overall economic impact.

The Democrats are as wrong as it gets. The first thing to do is deal with the immediate problem - shutting off the flow of oil. Not enough for these folks. They want a head on a platter. Any head on any platter. And they are using this disaster to forward their agenda. An agenda that has zero basis in the real world. One that would ultimately lead to extremely expensive gasoline and other energy as well.

Their agenda is what I call the "magic ball of energy," as seen on Star Trek. In other words, something that does not yet exist. They think that by simply making existing energy more expensive and difficult to purchase, their magic solution will simply materialize. Keep in mind, most of these folks not only dislike oil. They dislike nuclear, coal, natural gas, wind farms, hydro-electric and even fire. In other words, no reality present.

In the one, the Democrats deserve the "Knee Jerk Idiot Award" for their haste to politicize this. In this one, they were the first to try to use it. Thus, the first to be wrong, wrong, wrong. But they are not alone at the wrong way cafe.

Republicans took a little longer and at first, had the anticipated shouting back at Democrats with the tired and inappropriate 'Drill, baby, drill." There were the expected Katrina analogies and accusations of slow response. This even though most already knew this was not true. In fact, serious conservatives were taking a very cautious wait and see perspective.

Until today. Today it was put forth that the Obama administration may have let the well go for a while to create this disaster for political purposes. This first came from Limbaugh. Well, it was ignored because Limbaugh is a fat, stupid, pasty faced loudmouth paid to say fat stupid things to agitate people for the purpose of ratings. Much the same as Howard Stern. Pointless, but profitable.

Limbaugh ignores the acknowledged fact that BP pretty much lied about the severity of the problem, first reporting no oil spilled, then 1,000 barrels per day, then 5,000 barrels per day and now refusing to give any estimates. He boldly ignores the simple fact that the Coast Guard was on scene immediately and that the government has been working with BP from the start. It was just another ludicrous Limbaugh lie designed to agitate.

But then it got picked up by - of all people - Eric Bolling. In the traditional Republican "just something to think about" method, this got tossed out there for folks. I always thought Bolling was smarter than this. Sure, he is a conservative, but he has always been fair and honest about it. Until he passed along this Limbaugh lie.

For perspective, this is the same as the "9/11 Truthers" who claim the Bush administration was behind the terror attacks. In this regard, Limbaugh and Rosie O'Donnell are one and the same - fat, stupid loudmouths just making noise to get noticed.

Here is where the line gets drawn on this stuff. The spitball game of tossing hate at each other over politics as usual, well, that is the nature of the partisan nightmare we are trapped in. However, when the lives of millions are affected by a disaster of this scope, it is time to put down the flaming spitballs and look for the real problem, the real cause. And some real solutions not involving the next election.

In the case of 9/11 the real problem and the real cause is known. Radical Moslem terrorists who want to kill us simply because we exist. Not Bush or Cheney. As a Jew, I can tell you all about groups wanting us dead for no reason beyond our existence. This is real and it is now. Blaming President Bush was disgusting political opportunism at its absolute worst. Those who did (and some still do) need their mouths washed out with soap.

Same with the Gulf oil mess. Trying to find a way to blame President Obama is using the misery of millions for political gain. This is the same Obama that - despite his own party not wanting it - agreed to open up limited offshore exploration. And even though supporters of offshore drilling said it was not enough, it was more than they expected to get from him. In other words, he looked at the situation and realized that there was a way to move forward and was willing to publicly change his mind on the subject.

Now, those same supporters, sensing an opening for political opportunity are doing exactly what they lambasted O'Donnell and Michael Moore for doing. Exactly the same thing. And you know what - it is just as ugly on them as it was on O'Donnell. I tried to give O'Donnell a break on her comments, but she not only persisted, she got stupid (fire doesn't melt metal) and stubborn. So I consigned her to my moron shelf.

I am willing and and really trying to give Bolling the benefit of the doubt here. While I am typing, I am recording his regular show on Fox Business (Happy Hour; 5-6PM Eastern time weekdays) to see what he has to say. I really, really hope he will rethink this statement. In the interest of full disclosure, I like Bolling. I do not know him personally, and I think it is safe to say he and I disagree on many things. Bt he usually calls them honestly and based on fact.

This is how we are supposed to treat each other. I heard Bolling's comments earlier today and thought "Huh?" But I am willing to give him the benefit of the doubt and hear him out before slamming him around. In my opinion, he is a good guy who might have taken the Limbaugh lie at face value without any fact. Hopefully, he will rethink that.

That is what is missing these days. Nobody stops to actually listen and hear facts. It is all about innuendo and political spitballs. All about the next election.

The Limbaughs and Olbermanns do this all the time. While it is well within their rights to do so it is also wrong. It is irresponsible and intellectually dishonest. Yes, the First Amendment guarantees this right and I defend it, even though they are simply disgusting people. Olbermann is another stupid fat liar. Just like Rush. They are opposite sides of the same coin.

Both use explosive language and fiery rhetoric to literally demonize the other side. Olbermann and his ridiculous "Worst person" stuff is a prime example. In a world where people are brutally murdered for their tennis shoes, the worst person Olbermann has is one that disagrees with him. I guess in his universe the sun only rises at his command. One cannot help but wonder what color the sky is on his home planet.

Limbaugh the same. Just making it up and spouting it out.

I hope Bolling rethinks this and goes back to actual facts and not political sensationalism spouted from a lazy fat man hiding behind a microphone.

More than that I keep hoping that someone, somewhere will break this silly and ever more destructive cycle of political hatemongering. Me, I hope it is Eric.

The Goldman Affair

Sometime in a hearing room, long ago (or so it seemed by the end of the hearings) Carl Levin called in the kids from Goldman Sachs for a little chat. By chat, I mean hearing and by hearing, I mean group interrogation.

A lot of the media coverage centered on Levin's use of the word "s****y" as quoted from a Goldman e-mail. And while it was a direct quote, it had the unfortunate side effect of shoving the real information out of the way. I am sure that much will be made of the use of that word by the media. Whatever. Oh, except for CNBC's Jim Cramer. Stop apologizing for these guys, will you? Nobody wants to buy junk or crap. Nobody. Seriously, you sounded like an idiot.

What I saw was a rare peek into the inner workings of both Washington and Wall Street. And let me tell you, it is not a pretty sight. As a serious believer in free enterprise and a free market, I was interested to see how the Senate would come down on the issues surrounding Goldman. Between the push for the Financial Reform bill and midterm elections around the corner, one would expect a lot of posturing. And posturing we got.

The Senators get to tell their constituents that they stuck it to Wall Street and the Wall Streeters get to tell their pals they stuck it to the Senate.

However, we also had a look at how it really works when it finally came down to Carl Levin and Lloyd Blankfein. Before we got to that, there were panels of Goldman executives doing their absolute best to not directly answer a lot of questions, most of them loaded or too technical for actual comprehension.

We had the mortgage trader who was not sure what a stated income loan was. We had the division manager who really didn't see how packaging troubled loans with solid ones to get a good credit rating was a problem. We had the Senator who wanted to somehow get one of the execs to take the blame for the entire financial crisis. We saw the Senator who wanted to try to defend Goldman without defending them. We had hours of this stuff and more.

We also had a couple of interesting and informative points. One came when the trader who built the security that is at the heart of the SEC lawsuit against Goldman admitted he allowed the hedge fund manager to help designate the contents of that security knowing the hedge fund was going to bet against it be shorting it heavily. Sadly Claire McCaskill moved onto other matters rather than dive into that point. Full disclosure - I caught that when pointed out by FBN's Eric Bolling who made no excuses for Goldman and had good words for Levin. How refreshing.

Another was the blatant admission by a Goldman manager that he would select the bond rating firm that would give him the better rating. That also did not get the scrutiny it deserved

But the real look at how it works came when it was Levin and Blankfein. The heart of Levin's questioning was about the inherent conflict of interest that Goldman and all investment banks have.

In getting there, we had our peek behind the curtain. Levin came prepared with mountains of notebooks. Depositions, reports, e-mails, charts, tables and indices. And he made sure Blankfein had all the same documents. Frequently a staff member would whisper in Levin's ear when he had asked a question. Often Levin corrected himself.

When confronted with internal e-mails from his own staff calling securities crap and worse, Blankfein seemed to not know much. There was a lot of "I don't know," from the guy who supposedly knows it all. Blankfein actually said he had no idea that certain pension funds can only invest in AAA rated items.

And that is how it works on Wall Street and in Washington. They actually don't know. On purpose. Back just a few years ago, this was called "plausible deniability." Now it is business as usual.

Levin and Blankfein went around for quite a long time. I saw a CEO trying to look cooperative without cooperating and a Senator trying to look fair minded without any real fairness intended. Put them together and you had 2 masters hacking away at each other with carefully crafted and molded questions and answers.

When all was said and done, Levin made his point about conflicts of interest and intentionally selling junk. Blankfein managed to not actually admit to any of that while acknowledging it.

I recently posted that I thought the civil case should have been a criminal case. Now I am not so sure. I still believe that Goldman will settle for a pile of money and no admission of wrongdoing. But that will be a matter of convenience and not contrition.

But criminal? I just don't see it. Blankfein has a veritable army of lawyers to keep his firm right on the edge of legality. Not so much ethical, but legal. None of the stuff that came out today was an out and out violation of the law. Most of it was highly unethical and some of it just plain wrong, but not illegal. I have to correct myself from my earlier post on this point.

And therein lies the other peek at the inner working of Washington and Wall Street. They know exactly where the legality line is and pay platoons of people to keep them on the good side of that line. There is really no line for ethics to worry about. The powers that be in DC and on Wall Street know this. And they take full advantage of it.

You can't legislate ethics or morality. Either people are ethical and moral or they are not. That is where our political and business leaders fail us over and over. They trounce ethics and morals. Ignore them. But they always pull up right at the legality line. A false apology and back to business as usual.

We are the ethical and moral measures for these so-called leaders. We get to make that call. Whether it is at the ballot box in November or that proxy vote that you get with your stock holdings. We measure and rate them with our votes.

While I cannot vote to fire Lloyd Blankfein, I can vote to fire my elected officials, and I fully intend to do so. I think it is time to replace the whole lot of them. And that will put the Wall Streeters on notice that the new government is not going to play patsy and roll over. All of the bribes - sorry, campaign contributions - will be for naught.

As a member of the board of the USA (all 300 plus million of us) I move that we elect an entire new Legislative Branch. Do I hear a second?

Of Thin Skins

As the political discourse in this country continues to degrade into a schoolyard mud fight, one thing becomes more and more apparent. Our politicians, all of whom seem fully capable of launching insult after condemnation after slur also seem increasingly incapable of tolerating any directed at them.

Once upon a time, in a land right here, when a politician launched an attack, they expected and were able to handle the inevitable reply. They knew that the price of low ball politics was to be subjected to the same. Not so much anymore.

Now, we have a new breed of politician. One I call the bold coward. Those lovely elected officials and party operatives that freely and constantly sling mud. The ones that cannot utter an entire sentence without somehow slipping in an insult or 2. Yet, these same bold insulters become whimpering cowards when they are on the other side of the insult.

For 8 years, Democrats attacked President George W. Bush as unelected, selected, stupid, racist, and yes, a Nazi. And for 8 years, Bush withstood all of that with nary a whimper. Sure the party folks made noise. At the same time, the Republican led Congress was able to tolerate their share of insults. So were the Democrats.

While the nature of the politics grew uglier, at least they were all able to take what they dished out.

Somewhere along the line, that changed. The majority in Congress passed from corrupt Republicans to corrupt Democrats. And in that change, the ability of these self-proclaimed adults to take an insult evaporated. Sure, they could still dish it out, but they could no longer take it.

By the time we got to the 2008 election, politicians had become fragile china dolls who appear to shatter at the first sign of an insult. Oh, they can still dish them out, and more vile than ever, but they can no longer take them. Every insult, every comment, every negative remark became a cause unto itself, as if the mere hurling of an insult was somehow an evil act - but only to the recipient.

Nothing is quite as illustrative of this new syndrome as the now obligatory "president as Hitler" imagery. I personally find it detestable and would not use it. However, our Constitution guarantees the right to use such imagery, and as much as I dislike it, I defend it.

For 8 years, Democrats/Liberals used the Bush as Hitler stuff. They reveled in it. And for 8 years Republicans/Conservatives complained that it was wrong and inappropriate. They talked about putting our troops at risk by undermining a war time president. Words like sedition and treason were flung about. Democrats pointed to the First Amendment only to have the reply about aid and comfort to the enemy.

Then came 2008. Now, Republicans/Conservatives are using the Obama as Hitler imagery. It is still wrong, still inappropriate and still Constitutionally protected. But now, Democrats cry foul and Republicans point to the First Amendment.

In other words, a big steaming pile of self-righteous hypocisy.

Both sides were able to dish it out all day, but neither seems able to accept it with grace.

I am reminded of a situation I was in in 2004. I was attending the NRA Convention in Pittsburgh on behalf of a client. As is usually the case, anti-gun rights protesters has lawfully set up their protests outside. During the Convention, a reporter asked me what I thought about allowing the protests. I replied that it was a sign that America was healthy. That, while I disagreed with them, I respected and defended their right to lawfully protest. And, in fact, I found it heartening that our country allowed this. Well, that was one frustrated reporter. I failed to give him the fiery retort he needed for his broadcast. I failed to hurl an insult back. And I took the insults from the anti-rights folks in stride. After all, they do get to have an opinion, too. The report never aired. Not enough meat on those bones.

Well, in the ensuing 6 years, it has become the standard reply to cry foul, whimper about nastiness and then hurl an insult.

A serious case in point is the accusation of racism/sexism. This has now become the standard reply. Don't like Obama? Racist. Don't like GOP Chairman Steele? Racist. Don't like Pelosi? Sexist. Don't like Palin? Sexist. And so on.

Is there racism and sexism in America? Of course there is. Only an idiot or a liar would say otherwise. However, it is not the driving force it is made out to be, nor is it the basis for the preponderant majority insults and anger. The real basis for the anger is the mismanagement of our nation. By both sides. Americans are angry about bailouts. Angry about deficits. Angry about Wall Street and the banks. Angry about the economy. But mostly, angry about the endless sea of lies.

Here is a hard truth for most of the political coward class to swallow - most Americans don't like any of you. Not racist, sexist or any other '-ist.' We just don't like the way you run our country. This applies to both parties. My problems with Obama are issue based, the same way as my problems with Boehner are issue based. I could not care less of they are purple with diagonal pink stripes. It is what they are doing that I don't like.

So when an Eric Bolling (Fox Business) goes after the administration, he is doing so because he disagrees with the policies they have in place and Bolling's perception of Obama's stewardship. And, likewise, when a John Stewart (Daily Show) goes after Steele, it is over policy and stewardship. Not race. Not even close. Neither Bolling or Stewart are racists. They are simply expressing their opinions.

Who cares if a member of Congress shouts out during a speech? Seriously. So what? Yet, this gets more media attention than the ongoing investigations into members of this horribly failed Congress for corruption. One hyperbolic speech about Republican Health Care ideas being fatal and we forget that members of the Congress routinely lie about the money they claim to not be taking.

Perhaps if more of the political class could take an insult without running home to mommy, we might accomplish something. And if they cannot, then let them run home and stay there. We need adults in charge and not whimpering cowardly bullies.